RUDOLPH HAYES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rudolph Hayes pled no contest to cocaine possession and challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained via search warrant. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but struck multiple cost assessments that lacked statutory authority or proper procedural safeguards.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in Hayes's suppression challenge. However, the court struck the $500 public defender's lien, $100 attorney cost, prosecution/investigative costs, Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund assessment, and $265 in unspecified court costs because these lacked statutory authority or proper procedural compliance.
[1] A conviction will be affirmed when the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is found to be without merit.
[2] A public defender's lien and attorney costs imposed at sentencing are invalid if the defendant was not advised of their right to contest those assessments.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find no merit in the appellant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and, accordingly, affirm his conviction.”
The court's holding on the primary issue of whether the search warrant-based suppression motion had merit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled no contest to the cocai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Defender'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Rudolph Hayes, challenges the trial court’s judgment and sentence. Although we affirm the conviction, we strike the imposition of certain costs.
The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of a short-barreled shotgun in violation of sections 893.13(6)(a) and 790.221, Florida Statutes (1993). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant pled no contest to the possession of cocaine charge in return for a sentence of probation and he agreed to the entry of a notice of nolle prosequi for the possession of a short-barreled shotgun charge. The appellant also specifically reserved his right to challenge the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress he filed as a result of evidence which was seized pursuant to the execution of a search warrant. The trial court subsequently withheld adjudication of guilt to the possession of cocaine charge and ordered him to serve eighteen months probation and to pay various costs. This timely appeal followed.
We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and, accordingly, affirm his conviction. We do, however, find that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs.
We strike the trial court’s imposition of the $500 public defender’s lien and the $100 attorney cost since the appellant was not advised at sentencing of his right to contest those assessments. See Pope v. State, 598 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Jones v. State, 623 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The assessment for prosecution/investigative costs is also stricken since it was not requested by the state and the trial court did not consider the appellant’s financial resources. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We strike the assessment to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund since this cost is not authorized under any existing statute as either a fine or cost. Reyes, 655 So. 2d at 120. Further, the $265 in “Court Costs” which were imposed in the order of probation are stricken since there was no reference to any statutory authority. Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction but strike those costs mentioned above.
Affirmed as modified.
THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renaldo J. Bell v. State, 216 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ll contends, and the State agrees, that there is no statutory authority permitting the trial court to order him to make a $3000 donation to the ASPCA and that absent such authority, the imposition of the fine or cost is improper. See Hayes v. State, 686 So. 2d 602, 602-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (striking from a defendant’s sentence an assessment to the Hillsborough County Court Improvement Fund as not being authorized under any existing statute as either a fine or cost); Antosh v. State, 510 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Jones v. State, 623 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Pope v. State, 598 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)